Cape Cod Rail, Bridges and Highways

Highwayguy

Active Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2020
Messages
105
Reaction score
190
I fully support the suggested rotary alternative, but mostly because it continues our tradition of making nonstandard rotaries and roundabouts.
No idea why the mainline isn’t blasted through the middle other than to save the bushes. Definite head scratcher since all those signals don’t exactly make it a low cost alternative. That said Im also 128% for it.
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
3,131
Reaction score
3,034
Bikes, pedestrians, and horses are apparently allowed to use the rotaries on 28, but are prohibited on the mainline. These signs are posted just downstream of each rotary and on interchange ramps.
You're right. I missed that sign. It's odd that bikes would be prohibited from Rte 28 south of the rotary because this is not an expressway, but just a divided highway with a lot of curb cuts and cross traffic. Maybe that could be changed to allow bikes to use the paved shoulders on rte 28 down to where rte 28a takes off, once the new bridge is built.
 

DominusNovus

Active Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
943
Reaction score
71
Both of the highway bridges connect to non-expressway roads at both ends of each bridge, so bike lanes on the new bridges are most definitely warranted, Also, route 28 south from the Bourne Bridge to where route 28A tales off is a divided highway but not an expressway, so bikes can use the shoulders.
rte 3/6 is an expressway on both sides.
 

mass88

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
2,244
Reaction score
295
You're right. I missed that sign. It's odd that bikes would be prohibited from Rte 28 south of the rotary because this is not an expressway, but just a divided highway with a lot of curb cuts and cross traffic. Maybe that could be changed to allow bikes to use the paved shoulders on rte 28 down to where rte 28a takes off, once the new bridge is built.
I would not feel safe riding a bike along 28. It's a road where the speed limit is 45-50 mph and people drive a bit faster than that. Besides, there is already an expansive bike trail that runs from Woods Hole up to 151. So adding in bike specific lanes on 28 would not be needed.

Perhaps a dedicated crossing (apart from the two road crossings) of the canal for bikes and walkers would be better? This way you could tie in both sides of the canal and then hookup with the existing bike path. It would make for a really nice ride to Woods Hole.
 
Last edited:

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
3,131
Reaction score
3,034
I would not feel safe riding a bike along 28. It's a road where the speed limit is 45-50 mph and people drive a bit faster than that. Besides, there is already an expansive bike trail that runs from Woods Hole up to 151. So adding in bike specific lanes on 28 would not be needed.

Perhaps a dedicated crossing (apart from the two road crossings) of the canal for bikes and walkers would be better? This way you could tie in both sides of the canal and then hookup with the existing bike path. It would make for a really nice rude to Woods Hole.
I like the idea of a separate bike crossing over the canal (instead of on the two proposed road bridge replacements). But, as far as it actually getting done, the two new road bridges are the politically and fiscally expedient way to go, since they are funded and will probably happen in the (near?) future.
 

HenryAlan

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
3,037
Reaction score
1,716
In an ideal world, we'd have a robust public transit system that gets people from the core urbanized areas in an around Boston to the Cape, along with a light rail system within the Cape itself.

But we don't. And the fact remains that Cape tourism is a major economic engine for the state. And no matter how many people take the Cape Flyer, the harsh reality is that the vast majority of people (including a significant amount of out-of-towners from beyond SE MA) are going to drive there. The current infrastructure is obsolete. Replacing the bridges with modern ones that provide not only improved vehicular access, but safer pedestrian and bicycle accommodation is far overdue.
To be clear, I'm not opposed to rebuilding the bridges. I'm just annoyed that it is always so much easier to find funding for large car infrastructure projects when we so desperately need to spend more on transit.
 

Stlin

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
463
Reaction score
831
I'm just pulling in some of the slides showing conceptual designs.

While they're nominally deferring to public feedback as to which type of bridge they're going to go for, I think the language they've chosen pretty clearly indicates a preference towards the arch design, though I myself am very partial to a cable stayed bridge. I also personally think that while a single bridge is probably aesthetically best, I also understand why the State / Army would want to build the replacement as pairs.

Screenshot_20221117_203134_Adobe Acrobat.jpg

Screenshot_20221117_202109_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
Screenshot_20221117_202055_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
Screenshot_20221117_202044_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
Screenshot_20221117_201902_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
 
Last edited:

kingofsheeba

Active Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
851
Reaction score
1,075
Regardless of the final bridge design, will there be a reconfiguration of the actual Bourne Rotary?
 

bakgwailo

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
710
Seems like they are pushing the dual arch design. The other designs are definitely not presented objectively.
Haha, yeah, it would hard to be more blatantly pushing the desired design. That said, the arch or cable stayed both are probably the best choice, so if they want to push the arch then fine.
 

DominusNovus

Active Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
943
Reaction score
71
Haha, yeah, it would hard to be more blatantly pushing the desired design. That said, the arch or cable stayed both are probably the best choice, so if they want to push the arch then fine.
Agreed that they're clearly pushing that design. But lets be honest: there are enough NIMBYs around that anything remotely different will never get off the page. May as well just accept that and help smooth the way forward.

That said, whether it is just due to the proposal priming me or genuine appreciation of the design, I do like the arch design, aesthetically. And the fact that the arch can be built off-site is a big advantage, in my eyes.
 

HenryAlan

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
3,037
Reaction score
1,716
Seems like they are pushing the dual arch design. The other designs are definitely not presented objectively.
Well, sure, but I'd guess a lot of that is skillful tea leaf reading. The arch design is clearly best from an aesthetic and historic/cultural preservation standpoint. The cable stayed, frankly, looks ridiculous, and the concrete box is a generic highway overpass that would fit perfectly along a section of I-10 passing over Alabama swampland.
 

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
8,753
Reaction score
5,859
I mentioned earlier in this thread that I expected that they would go for a tied arch here and it seems they will. The dual cable stayed spans is an expensive and excessive option for such a short span and not likely to make it past initial proposals (though it would be beautiful). Tied arches are relatively cheap, easy to install, and are the go to span these days for basically anything in the 75-250 meter range. Its telling that the old john greenleaf whittier bridge, which was a miniature copy of the bourne and sagamore bridges, was replaced with two network tied arch bridges. It would be pretty cool though if the bourne bridge was replaced with tied arches and the sagamore with cable stayed bridges, but I dont think that would happen. Would be iconic though.

Using network tied arches over the canal would mean keeping the historic arch bridge silhouette over the canal, while using modern techniques, this is definitely a win win. Plus the bridges could be built in full off site and then floated up the canal and lifted into place. There is also no need for heavy or complex anchors on either side because the tie holds the ends of the arches in tension, simplifying construction further. It definitely makes the most sense to go with tied arches here.
 
Last edited:

Top